We reported last week about the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decision holding that a closely-held, non-religious corporation whose owners had religious objections to providing certain forms of birth control could be exempt from the Affordable Care Act mandate requiring coverage for birth control.  The decision, although seemingly limited by the majority, may have

“More than 100 people — activists, court enthusiasts and reporters — gathered outside the Supreme Court building early Monday, awaiting the last day of the court’s term, when the justices were expected to rule on whether President Obama’s health care law can require corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception.”      Thus spake the New

That appears to be the $64,000 question.  Most employers and some courts believe that the answer is no.  The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) simply requires that pregnant employees not be treated differently than non-pregnant employees for employment-related purposes.  This has consistently been interpreted to mean that employers do not have to treat pregnant employees better

We are still digesting the opinions (and Monday’s other employment related opinions), but here are the highlights of the two opinions regarding the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).

Hollingsworth v Perry:  This was the case filed in California where opponents of Prop 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage as it would constitutionally

As we previously blogged last year (Illinois Passes Civil Union Law), the Obama Administration has advised its Attorney Generals not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") in court.  However, until now, there has been no official petition by the Obama Administration to the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the law.


The United States Supreme Court has declined to review the Fifth Circuit decision Carder v. Continental Airlines, Inc. that decided, as a matter of first impression, that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") does not create a hostile work environment cause of action.

For now, that means that employers in the Fifth Circuit